Forum talk:Sylvania State Council Elections
Aren't you gonna use the already elected TV council people? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:25, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :State Elections are different from Local Elections, State Elections refer more to State Law and legislative while local more to executive and spending in areas. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:47, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Okay, you trying the megalomania? :P Interesting to see how this'll develop :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:51, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Ha, if I understand you correctly, no :L True, if it's a bumbling failure it'll have to be changed however, should it be successful then onwards it shall be! Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::Don't be ashamed, we've done that all before :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:06, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::::I've been accused by people of it before but thus far none have attempted to prosecute. :L Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:19, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Hahaha, it's been a long time since we've held illegal trials in Mäöres, prosecuting Lovian people for their actions in Lovia, so be warned :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:27, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::: :O I'd like to donate some money to Maores in respect of their history of great understanding. :L Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:30, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Hahaha, we need all the money we can get. Send it to me! :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:15, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Done and done! :L Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:00, June 24, 2013 (UTC) So when do they start? Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 16:01, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :A short while after the Headlands Local Election. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::When will the Train Village Council start? Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:45, June 24, 2013 (UTC ::::Also how will this work exactly ccan you run in both Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:53, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::::You can run candidates or lists anywhere you want and yes you can run in both however there are higher requirements in the Senator elections for both candidates and the electorate. After everyone has their seats given to them you can forget this whole election thing for a while and just get on with Government. :) and the Train Village Council will be started after the Charleston elections finish, so both will officially start at the same time. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:00, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::::So I can run candidates in all of them but i'm still restricted to three votes? And then the same applies to the senate races? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:31, June 24, 2013 (UTC) ::::::No each district is treated as an individual mini-election for both Representatives and Senate, so you can vote one way in one state and another in another (although I've had thoughts about restricting how many related areas you may vote in). And as I've said to Oos should things not work then we'll look at the problem and change it to make it work. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:46, June 24, 2013 (UTC) Hm, surely the disrepancy in populations between Noble City is not that great that Noble City gets 24 senators and the next largest district gets only 4? 77topaz (talk) 22:56, July 5, 2013 (UTC) :Noble City gets 24 Representatives and a senator while the next closest is Train Village with 4 Representatives and a senator. So you're right, there isn't a great discrepancy at all. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:01, July 5, 2013 (UTC) So, Kunarian, are the candidacies open yet? Frijoles333 / Marcel Cebara (talk) 12:59, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Opening today, just give me a moment. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:06, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Question Is it possible to be a candidate for both the senate and the other one? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:50, July 15, 2013 (UTC) :Yes, you can stand for both. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:55, July 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Okay :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:59, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Anyway, I ain't gonna stand in East Sylvania, but whoever wins, please remember Plemming Forest :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:53, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Why does it say "closed" above the candidacies section at the state elections while the closing date is meant to be July 21st? 77topaz (talk) 13:38, July 16, 2013 (UTC) :Forgot an update there? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:46, July 16, 2013 (UTC) ::Yes, changed now. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 14:40, July 16, 2013 (UTC) :::IF you live in Noble City can you also have a Major Vote for the Noble City Outer District? Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:12, July 22, 2013 (UTC) ::::Yes, you get a Major Vote for all districts in the Noble City Area. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 17:17, July 22, 2013 (UTC) Waaait Lemme get this straight If you live in the Green Zone you can use your major vote in both green zones, same going for the Red (Noble City) zones and Light Blue and Yellow zones? Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:18, July 22, 2013 (UTC) :20 points to Griffindor! :D Hoffmann KunarianTALK 17:28, July 22, 2013 (UTC) You answered above thanks :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:21, July 22, 2013 (UTC) : :o That makes me wanna reconsider my votes :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:50, July 22, 2013 (UTC) Chris added? Chris was added to the Senate Elections...I thought because he wasnt in Sylvania for a year he couldn't run!? Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:24, July 24, 2013 (UTC) :He proved he was (had a house in New Town before the civil war) and therefore the legal block HAD to be removed or I would have broken the law. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 14:26, July 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Si senior. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:28, July 24, 2013 (UTC) The Decider Looks like some of these elections are going to be decided by preference of voting. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 07:53, July 26, 2013 (UTC) Just so you know, MMunson does lives in Sylvania. HORTON11: • 15:47, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :He doesn't have residency. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:18, July 26, 2013 (UTC) I can't thank Kunarian enough, while i've been the earliest proponent for devolution he took the pragmatic approach. I wanted to do it in Clymene but Horton is a bit hesitant on it. Thanks and its been a great frmat and elelctions. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :No problem. I hope people remember this when the state elections come. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:18, July 26, 2013 (UTC) ::I'm not really fond of using the district system combined with a "you can't have a party running two members in a district". It leaves Wabba with practically 0 seats, as he can't run in the NC district (the only district which allows lesser-voted candidates to get at least a seat). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:21, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :::We can change that, besides remember this won't be a long Council (as in how long it is in office) and so it gives us a chance to work out problems before the next elections. And I have been thinking about repealing the rule that you feel has stunted Wabba. It generally helps parties to get more seats but the point you make about low vote candidates is important, we should definitely look at fixing problems in the system in a vote towards the end of this councils office. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 16:27, July 26, 2013 (UTC) ::::Good, nice to see some corporation and agreement :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:29, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::No problem. I like working together. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 17:17, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::: :o --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:25, July 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::: BenOpat2 only has 27 edits, he isn't a citizen then right? Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, July 27, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Yes, he is. He lost the password to his former account User:Benopat. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:22, July 27, 2013 (UTC) :::::::(posted at same time)No, he is, it's a continuation of his account BenOpat, if I remember the name correctly, he has quite a few more edits than 27. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 14:23, July 27, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Ha I remember there was a Benopat just didnt know about his old account. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:16, July 27, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::He's a former Governor (of Oceana), so of course he's (been) a citizen :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:28, July 27, 2013 (UTC) IDK about the TVD or anything really, but the polls are closed now anyway so idk Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:01, July 27, 2013 (UTC) :I don't think the Major Vote thing is right actually, cuz it ain't mentioned in the Sylvania State Law. Those results are tied as well. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:04, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::They aren't closed. And on tied votes I'm going to throw something into the Sylvania State Law now. Also you've done the seats wrong. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:05, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::I'm going to throw something into the Sylvania State Law now - now that isn't your standard democratic procedure. Certainly voting laws ought to be in place before the voting starts. Introducing game-changing alterations halfway through is murky at best. Is there not a 'clean' solution like equal division of deadlocked seats, keeping them unoccupied or a simple revote? 08:11, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Actually, I'd prefer a re-election in case of a tie in which only those tied are being elected, but I think I can live with your current addition too :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:13, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::Yuri has a point... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:13, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Why not create 0,5 seats? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:15, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Murky? because I'm really going to benefit from this new law I've introduced. Remind me how many seats I'm deadlocked for Yuri? Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:37, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :Thanks for the backup here. Allocating deadlocked seats based on voter support is tricky. Do we count the amount of bigger votes (major votes, etc.) or the amount of voters? The first option would diminish the impact of citizens who could only cast their support vote, like me. 08:22, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::I think a 0,5 could work well. Simply create two seats worth half a normal seat (consider them "half seats"), so there won't be a problem concerning placing it "into reality". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:25, July 28, 2013 (UTC) To be honest Sylvanian residents are the only ones who can cast higher votes so it makes more sense to eliminate the lower votes rather than count voters. This is an election for Sylvanians primarily after all. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:37, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :I understand what you're saying, but it's a bit too late to introduce that these elections. For now, either shared-seats or a revote is fair. Next elections, we can do the elimination thing. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:39, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::I can live with that, although the suggestion that there's anything murky about this is ridiculous. To be honest I don't have to even do these elections, I can just do it all as governor but I believe strongly in democracy and a lot more strongly than most. So the suggestion that what I'm doing is murky is ridiculous because if I really wanted to be murky I could declare these elections invalid and modify the Sylvanian constitution so that the Governor controls everything once more, now that would be murky, trying to quickly ensure we have a way of dealing with deadlocks is not. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:53, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::@Kunarian: I don't know who is running for the deadlocked seats, I didn't bother to check. My statement on the murkiness of introducing new rules was based in just that, the proposition of introducing new rules. In my opinion it isn't a proper way of handling the issue. Whoever loses the seats at stake would be unfairly disadvantaged. 08:51, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::If you're worried about murkiness look to your friends, Marcus devised a system which seems to have given his allies a quick route to winning some of the deadlocked seats concerned by just taking major votes into account, completely destroys the 'impact' of voters like yourself. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:53, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Anyways, the matter is settled. Oos is right, a simple revote will solve most problems. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 08:56, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::Please note that the proposal for a revote was included in my original protest to new rules. I grant you that rounding up votes in exotic places isn't exactly playing nice, but it has been a running strategy for most political affiliations at some time. I am simply looking for a solution that keeps middle ground. Also, I feel that IF voters from outside of Sylvania are allowed, their vote should count the same as any. Either that, or not be allowed to vote at all. But that is a future debate. 08:59, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::My solution does keep the middle ground, it allows voters who may check in only once over the voting schedule to have their votes matter, if they know nothing about a revote then they may not check in for it. Your idea of a basic re-vote being the only system of operation eliminates their votes and therefore their voice in government, anything to say about that? ::::::Look at this from a wikia point. People who are interested in Sylvania should have the priority vote as it matters most to them, if you're interested in the future of Sylvania get a house in Sylvania and do something about it, I allow citizens outside of Sylvania to vote because it might still matter to them however clearly what happens is not as important to non-residents because they did not get a house in the State. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 09:08, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :On a side note: my concern with introducing new rules is not so much my own personal impact but the fairness of the whole enterprise. Why should I vote at all if halfway through the process my vote can be left out? 09:01, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::To be honest, I think it would be best to leave out the foreign voters. That would make it more necessary to buy a property in the given state (thus promoting people to go live in Sylvania). --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:07, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::My logic is more of, engage people outside of Sylvania by allowing them to vote, if they are interested in the results them encourage them to buy a house in Sylvania. Also the way that I've constructed these elections is supposed to allow people who have a stake in Sylvania voice their opinion, if they put Sylvania low down on their list, they still can have a bit of say. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 09:16, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Alright, that's true as well :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:17, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::I completely understand where you're coming from and honestly the fact that I've done this early will give other Governors like yourself a chance to see how this affects your State: whether it makes it more active, whether it really does engage more people and how it affects your responsibilities as Governor. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 09:31, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Why vote in any preferential voting system then? ::And don't be ignorant. Your vote will get that person to the point of deadlock, so it matters all the way through, it may not help them win it but it got them there. Like the first few steps of a stairs. Are the those steps suddenly irrelevant once you're past them? no. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 09:08, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Why vote in any preferential voting system indeed? I support the representative model to a full 100%. If you get 0,7 percent of the population behind your crazy wishes, you should get 0,7 percent of the votes in parliament. If I had my way I would even reserve blank seats for the unregistered, undecided and fault voters. Now that would be representation as intended. But there are gradations to this. I can live with first-past-the-post, I don't like being invited to vote and then neglected though. 09:23, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::I completely understand and I admire what you say, however I am trying to be realistic not idealistic. And we must remember that we need a functional system (as close as we can get to idealistic without causing problems) first. And I agree 0.7% of the vote should give you 0.7% of the seats, however what do you do when a seat is disputed? considering both the wikia and IC? that is the problem I have given a solution to. And I reinforce your vote is not neglected. For a vote to be neglected it needs to have not mattered whether you cast it in the first place and that is clearly not the case in deadlocked seats. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 09:31, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::Deadlocked seats wouldn't occur since in a representational system candidates would not be running for a limited and predetermined set of seats. Each candidate simply gets a future voting weight based on their share of voters in the total electorate. That way seats can not disputed, they simply aren't part of the mechanics. Of course I understand we have a tradition of electing seats and we need to keep things workable too. The vote-neglection remains my opinion though. For instance, I see no reason to prefer counting major votes (or native voters) over amount of total voters. If I have one major vote and my opponent has three support votes, why should I win? Certainly less people support me? It is just that my one supporter likes me really very much. I feel that the three voters of my opponent would be 'neglected' in the sense that the weight of their votes is severely undercut. 09:45, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::However I understand that under your system, where a candidate gets a weight based vote, one person might be able to get huge percentages of votes. If three candidates where to get 90% of the vote between them, how is that good? I think that more voices and more discussion in government is good, and three people alone, practically ruling a nation by themselves is not a good thing. While that's similar to what we do in Lovia, that's only OOC and we should avoid giving lots of power to one or a few people. ::::::I'm glad you understand the need for a working system. Also your point is a good one, however consider this: that one person with the three vote lives and works in Sylvania with their family and is strongly affected by the State Laws passed here, maybe those three voters with one vote are simply Lovian citizens who are passing through, maybe staying a month or two, or even half a year but still they are moving on. In this example, it's obvious who you should consider first. And while I'm making a point on that, let me also say that this shows that you can bend this many ways and mold it into different examples and produce one favourable to your point of view so what we really need to do is look at what is actually happening and see how different rules are affecting that. ::::::And just to round off, once more, your vote is not neglected via the amazingly laid out stairs principle (nice name huh? honestly I'm just amazed I managed to come up with an analogy that made sense). Hoffmann KunarianTALK 10:07, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::::If a select group of candidates garners a huge majority in a representational system it is due to the voters being represented in an accurate fashion. In majority systems it is due to misrepresentation and built-in distortions. Even the concept of constituency goes counter to representation. Representation seldom poses a danger since in the practice of real life they all tend to have more diverse parliaments and governments. The setback of course being unstable coalitions that are fashioned in tiresome negotiations. But democracy-wise 100% representation is the way to go - one constituency, one citizen, one vote (or an equal amount of votes for all voters that is). The danger of being governed by a 'dictate of the majority' is way bigger under majority voting systems. 10:19, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I agree, however the 'dictate of majority' is not avoided under the system you suggest, in fact it is reinvented. Rather than one party being able to play a load of seats, one lone candidate might be able to. Personally I think a more ideal system would be one via which everyone would themselves vote on issues in government. Proposals could be made by anyone and anyone could sponsor it, enough sponsorship would bring it to the voting level when everyone could vote. That way there is no 'dictate of the majority' and people can be represented perfectly nationally by being able to interact directly. Although I admit my ideal is too not able to function yet. Direct democracy is the closest you get to my ideal now. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:57, July 28, 2013 (UTC) :Even if everyone votes for him/herself a majority dictate can not be avoided. The laws of mathematics are hard and a majority is, well, a majority. I guess that is why democracies need hard-to-tamper-with constitutions and human rights. I simply brought it up to illustrate the superiority of representational over majority voting. Of course, everyone voting for himself is perfect representation. It seems we indeed think quite alike. 12:55, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Why not include an overhang seat like what is done in Australia and NewZealand, it shows both parties were popular enough to obtain that seat and thus both get it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:14, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::@Kunarian - The use of major vote over minor/support is used in Federal elections, seeing as there was no clear system in place it was just the one I used. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:34, July 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Can we extend voting longer? This only gives people one day, at least three please? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:17, July 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::::No, changing rules just after deciding them is as Yuri said 'murky' at best. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 05:45, July 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I concur. The only acceptable reason to extend the voting period is if no-one showed up to vote. There has been sufficient opportunity, not? 06:11, July 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Yes, plenty of opportunity and I've been running an awareness campaign too. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:14, July 29, 2013 (UTC) Criticism My criticism remains: I'm not really fond of using the district system combined with a "you can't have a party running two members in a district". It leaves Wabba with practically 0 seats, as he can't run in the NC district (the only district which allows lesser-voted candidates to get at least a seat). --OuWTB 10:26, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :And yes, I am considering pulling back from NC district to give Wabba a chance. --OuWTB 10:27, September 28, 2013 (UTC) I'm thinking of making the system a real party list system. Then you won't have to worry about it as you'll stand together as a party list and be able to gain those seats. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 10:44, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :Those are all empty solutions. In theory, I could run a separate list in Sylvania, and then two CCPL members could stand in the same district. On-wiki, this system simply does not work :P --OuWTB 10:48, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::It is not empty. Under the idea I just proposed you are free to run a separate list, however that will only harm your chances. Under the idea I just proposed, you would both stand together as a CCPL list in a district, if you are the primary member on the list and Jhon Lewis the secondary member then if the list was awarded 5 seats, then you would get three and wabba two. However if he was the primary member on the list, the opposite would be true. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:02, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Let me explain. It is basically the same system as we currently have. F.e. after the elections, I could grant half of my seats to Wabba. Still, there is only one vote option (CCPL), while, if I would run a separate list, there would be two vote options (f.e. CCPL and Oos Wes Ilava Dictatorial Organization). So, it is an empty solution :P --OuWTB 11:10, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::You can't though. You are not allowed to grant seats. The law clearly states that you cannot. I understand why you might think so because it is allowed in Congress but in the council it is unallowed. Thus the solution is not empty. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:33, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::Okay, but it is still empty though. You did not address the point in which I'm 100% right. Theoretically, I could even run in a list called "Second CCPL" :P --OuWTB 11:47, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I understand what you're getting at, but what you imply is that there's a need more thorough regulation of candidates who may stand to stop people from making variances of party lists. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:56, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Either that - which is practically impossible to do though with our current role-play system - or abandoning the entire rule. --OuWTB 11:58, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Problem is I think this is an issue in the real world but never the less it's not really because just like in the real world, if you stand in two lists rather than one you will lose out. So therefore my original solution is the only way forwards. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:08, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::I couldn't disagree more :P Unlike in the real world, you could vote on more than one candidate. And especially in a large district such as NC, you can get more influence for a typical political spectrum if two alike candidates are standing, as there is more than one seat to divide. --OuWTB 12:18, September 28, 2013 (UTC) (reset) Feel free to divide your list then. Considering how much you've raised the point, I'll make sure we legislate to eliminate such problems. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:36, September 28, 2013 (UTC) Actually, if you read the law, there's no party restriction in the representative elections. Wabba can stand in Noble City alongside you. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:44, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :If so, then why does this page clearly state: "A political party may only register one candidate list per district"? --OuWTB 12:45, September 28, 2013 (UTC) ::It must have been my intention but I never implemented it, it's still valid for the senatorial elections. I'll change it now. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:49, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Good, that's what I call a solution :P --OuWTB 12:55, September 28, 2013 (UTC) Residency within the state Does it refer to the user's main character, or the character on the list? 77topaz (talk) 03:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC) :Users main character. We'll assume other minor characters on the list have residency from that. KunarianTALK 09:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC) :OK. Characters on the State List should be those who are not already running in a region, right? 77topaz (talk) 23:36, October 17, 2015 (UTC) ::Yes. KunarianTALK 23:38, October 17, 2015 (UTC) Revotes Need to have revotes on the Long Road & East Bay (involving CCPL and GP) and Plains (involving CCPL and SNP) constituencies. Put a pro next to the party you support. Long Road & East Bay CCPL * (Neil Hardy) Neil Hardy 21:53, November 8, 2015 (UTC) GP * 77topaz (talk) 03:17, November 8, 2015 (UTC) * Mezatir FictiveJ (discuss) 21:56, November 8, 2015 (UTC) Green Party victory. Plains CCPL * (Neil Hardy) Neil Hardy 21:53, November 8, 2015 (UTC) SNP * KunarianTALK 00:46, November 8, 2015 (UTC) * 77topaz (talk) 03:17, November 8, 2015 (UTC) Sylvanian Nationalist victory.